Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it.

Menu

Category Archives: Illegal Immigration

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Philip Gutierrez issued an order preventing President Trump from revoking DACA protections, and is ordering the administration to reinstate all those who have been dropped from the program. This is more astounding judicial overreach in a year marred by such actions. The initial DACA program was a memo, not legislation, not even a legitimate executive order or regulation. Trump has every right as president to revoke it and enforce that revocation, but this judge has the gall to say he can’t.

An earlier circuit court decision handed down in January, blocked Trump from ending DACA in the first place – an action he had initiated last year. The Department of Justice issued an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to override this decision, but on Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not hear it. While this is standard practice when an issue is being litigated in lower courts, the clear abuse of power exercised by these lower courts should compel the Supremes to consider this a special case.

We have been watching this outrageous judicial usurpation of power for a full year. It is sheer lawlessness and has to stop. All public officials swear an oath to protect and defend, not subvert, the Constitution. What they are doing is a threat to the very legal foundations of our Republic.

There is only one punitive remedy that can be taken against such judges. Congress can impeach them. Unfortunately, Congress has impeached only 15 federal judges in its entire history, and only eight of those were actually removed. A good example is the case of Alcee I. Hastings (another U.S. district court judge), who was impeached for accepting a $150,000 bribe to reduce sentences for two mobsters. That is certainly a clear-cut case for impeachment, not to mention significant jail time, but so are these overtly partisan decisions made by judges specifically to thwart the irrefutable authority vested in the presidency.

This kind of legal subversion is actually much more egregious, because it threatens the entire legal structure of our country. If these jurists can successfully usurp the authority of a democratically elected president, it essentially negates the election. To the extent that this is allowed to stand, our nation is no longer a republic, but increasingly resembles a third-world dictatorship.

There is a precedent to convict for such behavior, but not much of one. Supreme Court judge Samuel Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1804 for actions described as “tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan” (sic). Unfortunately, the Senate failed to convict, and his case is said to have insulated Supreme Court justices from similar action ever since.

The Supreme Court did hand President Trump a victory on the immigration front this week. It will not affect the DACA controversy, but puts to rest some other legal challenges to Trump’s arrest and deportation of criminal aliens. Not surprisingly, this was a defeat for the 9th Circuit, where much of the court obstruction to Trump’s immigration policies is originating. The government can now hold criminal aliens indefinitely and can deny bail.

A lower court also ruled this week that the administration could waive environmental regulations to expedite construction of the border wall. So the week was not a complete loss, but it remains frustrating that certain blatantly partisan jurists continue to abuse their power in obstructing the Trump administration’s electoral mandate to reverse President Obama’s most egregious unconstitutional actions.

President Trump’s State of the Union Address was inspiring and frankly, the best I have ever seen. The entire speech was moving, and President Trump inspired the country and the world. The vast majority of the Democrats exposed themselves as petty and ridiculous.

President Trump, however, has doubled down on his insistence that there be a “path to citizenship” for the 1.8 million illegal immigrants that would be eligible for DACA as it stands, not just those who have signed up. President Trump did not mention the fate of the parents of the young illegal immigrants, who presumably would get to stay under his proposal.

Memo to @realDonaldTrump: Democrats @ #SOTU made clear they won’t accept your extremely generous compromise on immigration. You can, should and now MUST walk away from the negotiations. Art of the deal.

As has been documented repeatedly at TrevorLoudon.com, Democrats do not care about illegal immigrants as individual human beings, but they care very much about their vote. Trevor Loudon, therefore, describes illegal immigration as “the greatest security threat we face.”

Here is a transcript from last night’s address about illegal immigration:

Over the next few weeks, the House and Senate will be voting on an immigration reform package.

In recent months, my Administration has met extensively with both Democrats and Republicans to craft a bipartisan approach to immigration reform. Based on these discussions, we presented the Congress with a detailed proposal that should be supported by both parties as a fair compromise — one where nobody gets everything they want, but where our country gets the critical reforms it needs.

Here are the four pillars of our plan:

The first pillar of our framework generously offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age — that covers almost three times more people than the previous administration. Under our plan, those who meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be able to become full citizens of the United States.

The second pillar fully secures the border. That means building a wall on the Southern border, and it means hiring more heroes like CJ to keep our communities safe. Crucially, our plan closes the terrible loopholes exploited by criminals and terrorists to enter our country — and it finally ends the dangerous practice of “catch and release.”

The third pillar ends the visa lottery — a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of our people. It is time to begin moving towards a merit-based immigration system — one that admits people who are skilled, who want to work, who will contribute to our society, and who will love and respect our country.

The fourth and final pillar protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration. Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives. Under our plan, we focus on the immediate family by limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children. This vital reform is necessary, not just for our economy, but for our security, and our future.

In recent weeks, two terrorist attacks in New York were made possible by the visa lottery and chain migration. In the age of terrorism, these programs present risks we can no longer afford.
It is time to reform these outdated immigration rules, and finally bring our immigration system into the 21st century.

These four pillars represent a down-the-middle compromise, and one that will create a safe, modern, and lawful immigration system.

Watch the SOTU HERE and give one of our favorite Facebook pages a “like”:

Here is a short clip of Trevor Loudon’s hard-hitting documentary, the Enemies Within which explains how the radical left exploits illegal immigrants to get their votes.

Using their own words, Loudon compiled a montage of the most dedicated DACA activists such as Rep. Luis Gutiérrez and former Obama advisor Eliseo Medina.

Speaking of Latino voters, Medina said:

“…when they voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up”

[…]

“We reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters”. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three?

If we have eight million new voters who care about …… and will be voting. We will be creating a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle…

Watch:

﻿

Watch and circulate Trevor Loudon’s shocking documentary The Enemies Within as widely as you can before November 2018. It is a vote changing experience.

Bushra Alawie is the FBI’s outreach to the metro Detroit area and gave a training workshop for local law enforcement Jan. 10 on “cultural education” about Islam. Screenshot/WXYZ

Two Michigan residents attended a BRIDGES meeting hosted by the Detroit office of the FBI recently that left them stunned by the level of Islamist infiltration at the Bureau.

BRIDGES is a quarterly FBI outreach program that stands for Building Respect in Diverse Groups to Enhance Sensitivity, whereby the FBI hosts workshops for law enforcement and various immigrant communities. They’ve been held in Boston, Detroit, Houston and Minneapolis-St. Paul and some city police departments host similar meetings on their own, without the FBI in attendance.

According to the FBI website, BRIDGES “brings together members of diverse communities and state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies to discuss issues and concerns within their communities.”

In southeastern Michigan, those diverse communities include an array of Islamic migrant enclaves, both Shia and Sunni, as well as Coptic, Chaldean and Assyrian Christians forced to flee their Middle Eastern homelands by the Islamic State and other jihadist groups.

The outreaches can sometimes go to bizarre lengths to demonstrate the FBI’s respect for Islam.

In St. Paul, for example, the FBI boasted in its Oct. 7, 2014 edition of the Law Enforcement Bulletin that the local police department “hosted its first halal cookout” with the Somali Muslim community.

The Jan. 10 BRIDGES meeting in Michigan serves as a fresh reminder of how the FBI has made a concerted effort to divert the eyes of law enforcement away from Muslim communities as potential breeding grounds for terror and refocus attention on “Islamophobic” American citizens.

The meeting, held at the Troy Police and Fire Training Center in Oakland County, an affluent suburb of Detroit, was described as “painful to watch” by two guests who attended.

Dick Manasseri, an activist with Secure Michigan and a resident of Oakland County, gained entry to the meeting by way of a guest invitation from the American Middle Eastern Christian Congress, a regular attendee. But he said he heard nothing about the plight of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians now living in Oakland County.

Instead, almost the entire hour-and-a-half meeting was spent focusing on Islamic religious and cultural practices and trying to debunk any derogatory information police officers may have received about Islamic ideology.

The FBI’s point person for this task was Bushra Alawie, a young female Muslim wearing a full head covering, or hijab. Alawie served in the Army National Guard and upon leaving the Guard in September 2016 the FBI hired her to be its “community outreach specialist” in Detroit.

The mother of four spoke confidently and without any trace of an accent during her presentation on Islamic “cultural education.”

“I get that initial look like, ‘is that really Bushra’ because of my visibly Muslim attire,” she told Detroit’s WXYZ-TV in 2016. “Immediately those rumors are dispelled and it’s business as usual.”

Alawie admitted in the WXYZ interview that her real mission at the FBI is not to ferret out tips and information useful in the apprehension of terrorists but rather it is to “combat Islamophobia.”

That just happens to be the same exact mission of the Muslim Brotherhood-offshoot Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has an entire division called the Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia. And while he did not attend the January meeting, CAIR’s Michigan chapter head, Dawud Walid, has a standing invitation to the FBI’s quarterly BRIDGES meetings in metro Detroit.

Also on the FBI’s invite list is CAIR’s former Michigan chapter leader, Muthanna Al-Hanooti, who was convicted in 2011 of conspiring to work for a foreign government, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and making false statements to the same FBI. Yes, that would be the same FBI which now courts him as a guest at its Detroit-area outreach meetings.

About that phrase “Allahu Akbar,” so frequently shouted during the commission of Islamic terrorist attacks, Alawie assured the police officers in attendance not to worry or give it a second thought.

According to her, “Allahu Akbar”:

Is said by Muslims 85 times a day

Was said by Jews and Christians before Islam began

Would be used to celebrate the birth of a child or in the prayer of a sick person

Is perfectly normal and not particularly associated with violent jihad.

She explained that “jihad” means:

An inner struggle – for her to “not eat cheesecake”

Higher jihad – inner struggle

Lower Jihad – to defend one’s property.

She mentioned that “Jihad” was even a name taken by Christian men on occasion and that there was an FBI employee of Palestinian descent whose name was Jihad.

According to Alawie, if we Americans understand these subtleties, then we will be well on our way to wiping out Islamophobia.

Where did the impetus for this FBI focus on Islamophobia come from? It certainly did not originate in Oakland County, Michigan, or even Washington. It’s international in scope.

“Combatting Islamophobia” has been a top priority, since at least 2005, of the United Nations and the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a 57-nation group of Muslim-majority nations that makes up the largest voting bloc at the U.N.

The OIC adopted its 10-year Strategic Action Plan to Overcome Islamophobia in 2005, calling for nations to pass new laws “including deterrent punishments” for those guilty of Islamophobia. This crime was described as any speech that counters the OIC’s statement that “Islam is the religion of moderation and tolerance.”

This 10-year plan served as the basis for the 2011 U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18, which encourages every nation in the world to adopt hate-speech laws making “defamation of religion” a crime. There is only one religion, however, that seeks to punish people for speech deemed offensive to its members – Islam. Many nations in Western Europe, including the UK, Germany and Sweden obliged, as did Canada, and passed hate-speech laws geared toward punishing these vile Islamophobes.

It was also around this same time frame – 2010 to 2012 – that lesson plans in public schools across the United States started incorporating large sections on Islam, emphasizing it as a religion of peace and tolerance. Any teacher who resisted was an Islamophobe.

In February 2017 U.N. Secretary General Antonio Gutteres cited “Islamophobia” as the fuel that has ignited the rise of global terrorism. This U.N. focus on Islamophobia came during the peak offensives of ISIS, al-Nusra and other jihadist groups conducting a genocide against Christian minorities in Iraq and Syria – exposing the global body’s agenda as more concerned about speech deemed offensive to Muslims than beheadings, rapes and mass-murdering of Christians.

Philip Haney, a former Customs and Border Protection officer who became a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 and a member of the Advanced Targeting Team before retiring in July 2015, said the FBI did not get to the point of rolling out Bushra Alawie overnight.

When Haney tried to blow the whistle on Homeland Security ineptitude, he found himself the target of repeated investigations and harassment. A critical data template he developed to catch terrorists before they strike was erased from the DHS computer system. He was an Islamophobe.

Haney believes the term “Islamophobia” was created by the global Islamic movement to set up a watered-down version of the blasphemy laws that terrorize Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East.

Instead of a stern-looking mullah or sheikh enforcing the blasphemy laws under penalty of death, the Muslims in the West use people like Bushra Alawie, who deliver the same warning with a smile, under penalty of losing one’s reputation and career.

“She wouldn’t have been given that platform under the old rules,” Haney said. “These concessions to Islam have been developing for a long time, and the fact that someone like her would be endorsed by the FBI and given that platform, it would never have happened without all those previous developments at the OIC, U.N., and the fervent work of Obama holdovers in the FBI.”

Scrubbing FBI training manuals

One of the more crucial developments came in 2011 – the same year the U.N. adopted Resolution 16/18. That’s when more than 50 Muslim organizations, many with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, sent a letter to Obama’s then-deputy national security adviser John Brennan demanding he remove from FBI training manuals all references to Islam deemed offensive to Muslims. They also requested that the FBI and DHS rid themselves of all “biased experts” – people like Haney – and “immediately create an inter-agency task force to address the problem.”

Brennan and then-FBI chief Robert Mueller fell over like a stack of dominos. They immediately scrubbed the training manuals and began purging federal agencies of patriots with expert knowledge of Islamist ideology.

Instead of true terrorism experts, police would receive training from people like Bushra Alawie, the smooth-talking, hijab-wearing Muslim apologist with the contagious smile.

Since most local police chiefs get training from the FBI Academy, the same drivel that now passes for counter-terrorist instruction at the Bureau gets filtered down to police departments nationwide.

But Trump is rectifying all of this right? Unfortunately, no. All of the Muslim infiltrations of the government remain in place. Hiring a woman like Alawie to present an unrealistic view of Islam is the new normal at the FBI.

Other highlights from the BRIDGES meeting:

Troy Mayor Dane Slater welcomed the meeting attendees to the “most diverse city in Michigan.”

Troy Police Chief Gary Mayer, along with four of his senior officers, welcomed their federal counterparts from the FBI and witnessed the guidance provided by the FBI regarding the normalcy of “Allahu Akbar” and benevolent jihad.

Praise was offered for the Obama-appointed former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade who was fired by Trump.

Examples offered of domestic terrorism repeatedly focused on white supremacist groups, who are seen as more dangerous than Islamic terrorism according to the teaching of the previous administration and the United Nations-endorsed Strong Cities Network.

The FBI’s special agent in charge of Detroit said there remains no clear motive for the Las Vegas massacre.

Mental health was injected as an explanation for violent activity per the Muslim Brotherhood playbook.

Celebration of the long-standing civil rights partnership between the FBI and the Muslim community was marked with recognition awards.

“Everything was about welcoming, welcoming, welcoming,” Manasseri said. “It was terribly discouraging, including when they talked about domestic terrorism and they kept coming back to white supremacism and how do you protect us from white nationalism? Stunning.”

To counter the false and incomplete training being given by the FBI, Manasseri has co-founded a project called Sharia Crime Stoppers in partnership with a retired police chief.

“The Muslim Brotherhood-managed FBI and its pandering to Islam at 60-plus BRIDGES meetings since the 9/11 terrorist attacks provides ample evidence that Michigan is already living under Sharia, even while it contemplates the candidacy of Sharia-compliant and Muslim Brotherhood-groomed candidate Abdul El-Sayed for governor,” Manasseri said.

El-Sayed is running on the Democratic ticket in Michigan’s 2018 gubernatorial race. CAIR’s Dawud Walid has already said, in an article for the Detroit News, that any questions to Muslim candidates about Sharia law are off limits. For any journalist or concerned citizen to ask such a question would be Islamophobic.

Leo Hohmann is author of the 2017 book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.” Donate to this website and help support his investigative reporting on topics most journalists are afraid to touch.

Pramila Jayapal with activists from NAKASEC and other pro-illegal immigration groups on January 17 2018

Hardcore leftist, illegal immigration activist and Washington State Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal tweeted that “chain migration” is a “myth” and later claimed “[T]here is no such thing as chain migration. Only family reunification.” During an activist rally on January 17, Jayapal said in part, “chain migration is not real.”

Jayapal is also charging that current immigration policies are “sexclusionary,” favoring men and are, of course, racist. In an OpEd at The Nation (the house journal for the radical Institute for Policy Studies) earlier this month, Jayapal writes:

“Republican attempts to recharacterize this valuable system of family-based immigration as ‘chain migration’ are not just false; they are rekindling a racist ideology that was present at the beginning of our immigration system. Our immigration policy has its roots in excluding immigrants from ‘undesirable’ non-white countries and focusing immigration on white countries, an ideology still scattered through many of our outdated laws.”

Jayapal claims in her editorial that chain migration is a term cynically used by republicans, but Senator Chuck Schumer used the phrase “chain migration” way back in 1990 and had quite a different view than he does now, as the democrat party shifted to a pro-illegal alien position.

A recent OpEd posted at The Hill by Senators Tom Cotton, Chuck Grassley and David Perdue reveals that “chain migration” is not a “myth,” but a very real and damaging policy that encourages entry of extended family beyond spouses and minor children.

“Chain migration is one of the biggest problems in our immigration system today….unlike other advanced industrialized countries, our nation also gives preferences to the extended family members of citizens…This policy has spurred a wave of mostly unskilled immigration into our country.

Today, only one in 15 of the more than 1 million immigrants who are admitted every year are given a visa because of their job skills or entrepreneurial ability. The other 14 immigrants are admitted without regard to their skills. That means that every year we are admitting hundreds of thousands of workers with almost no consideration for the impact their immigration will have on American jobs and wages. That is one of the reasons why polling has shown that over 70 percent of Americans favor limiting chain migration to only the spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents and citizens.”

“In a new Harvard-Harris poll, nearly 80 percent of Americans said they believe ‘immigration priority for those coming to the U.S. should be based on a person’s ability to contribute to America as measured by their education and skills—and not based on a person having relatives in the U.S.'”

Jayapal, the vice-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (founded by Bernie Sanders in 1991), made similar statements during a rally sponsored in part by NAKASEC, a radical group whose affiliate, the HANA Center, hosted Rasmea Odeh, a known terrorist who murdered two young Israeli boys in 1969 just last year as reported at TrevorLoudon.com.

On January 17 2018, Pramila Jayapal protested with DACA activists from NAKASEC and other radical groups.

Watch her comments at the 6:20 mark:

Here are some of the congresswoman’s tweets. Do they represent your point of view?

— United We Dream (#DreamActNow: 478-488-8059) (@UNITEDWEDREAM) January 21, 2018

It’s so simple. If Republicans want our votes, the budget must reflect key priorities for Democrats and the American people, including funding for CHIP, community health centers, the opioid epidemic and DACA.

Special Edition for the “Great Democrat Party DACA Government Shutdown of 2018”

Press 2 for “what we have here is a failure to communicate” en espanol. Why reinvent the wheel? Hard labor working on our infrastructure by those who’ve broken the law has proven its worth.

TRIGGER ALERT: For social justice snowflakes and Progressive useful idiots – before you proceed further and get your knickers in a knot and pass-out from the vapors – the proposals in following piece incorporate a meaningful dollop of tongue-in-cheek, which an online dictionary defines as “characterized by insincerity, irony, or whimsical exaggeration.” We understand that having coming up through the modern Progressive-controlled education system, your budding sense of humor was crushed, displaced by a humorless sense of zealous self-righteousness – in other words, “social justice warrior-dom.” (Say that phonetically. Just kidding. Maybe.)

We also recognize that, as a consequence, most of you have been conditioned to be binary-thinkers, devoid of a capacity to ponder complexity, degree or nuance. Consequently, your binary analysis limited to: “Whatever I’m instructed is Progressive is good, and whoever doesn’t 100% buy-in to that is a [fill-in the blank] “____ phobe” or “hater.” While we feel sorry for you and your stifled development, we must not allow that to dictate public policy.

Politico published an item regarding the White House press briefing on 1/17/2018 where a Justice Department official, Ed O’Callaghan explained several terror cases inside the United States had connective tissue to chain migration as well as illegal immigration in an effort to give rise to the whole debate on Capital Hill as it relates to DACA, funding the border wall and shutting down the Federal government if no deal is reached. The only paragraph that did not have some bias slant to it is:

The report’s release, part of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last year, comes as the White House is pushing for changes in the U.S. immigration system that would end the diversity visa lottery program — through which a terrorist who killed eight people with a rented truck entered the U.S. — and chain migration, the practice of legal immigrants sponsoring family members’ entry into the country.

Most of the critical national security enhancements implemented and effectuated as a result of Executive Order 13780 are classified in nature, and will remain so to prevent malicious actors from exploiting our immigration system.

However, to “be more transparent with the American people and to implement more effectively policies and practices that serve the national interest,” Section 11 of Executive Order 13780 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, to collect and make publicly available the following information:

(i) Information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation with or provision of material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national-security-related reasons;

(ii) Information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and who have engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States;

(iii) Information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called “honor killings,” in the United States by foreign nationals; and, (iv) Any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

According to a list maintained by DOJ’s National Security Division, at least 549 individuals were convicted of international terrorism-related charges in U.S. federal courts between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2016. An analysis conducted by DHS determined that approximately 73 percent (402 of these 549 individuals) were foreign-born. Breaking down the 549 individuals by citizenship status at the time of their respective convictions reveals that:

1. 254 were not U.S. citizens;2. 148 were foreign-born, naturalized and received U.S. citizenship; and,3. 147 were U.S. citizens by birth.

8 specific cases were listed in the report with a summary of each case. The Boston bombers were not listed in this report. They went from a tourist visa, to asylum status, to green card and one got citizenship. We also have the San Bernardino killers that arrived on a marriage visa and a cultural visa. Both of those have stay limits. The argument here in both cases they are in the spirit of chain migration.

Diplomatic favors? How about that Christmas Day bomber? How was he granted a visa?

The Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had initially had his visa denied in 2004, four years prior to his 2008 application. In 2004, he applied again, and the initial denial was overturned because a supervisory consular officer decided Abdulmuttalab’s father was too prominent in Nigerian politics and finance to upset the U.S. diplomatic applecart in that country and deny his son a visa. Ironically, this was the same father who four years later visited the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and sought to help the U.S. keep his son out of the U.S., only subsequently to have the U.S. decide he was not important enough to listen to.

The legal kicker in this visa story is that on Abdulmuttalab’s 2008 application, he lied and said he had never received a prior denial, enough to deny him a visa under law and keep him out of the country. As the matter was “considered resolved,” State Department did not look again at the 2004 denial when the young Al Qaeda operative sought another visa in 2008. Instead, he was granted the multi-year visa he used to attend an Islamic convention in Houston in 2008 and again for airline check-in on Christmas Eve.

This is incredibly embarrassing to the State Department. Despite State’s spin on this “new” fact, what this makes clear is that: (1) the intelligence community was not primarily to blame after all for failure to revoke the visa, as it should never have been issued in the first place; but (2) raises – once more – a larger issue of the State Department’s policies regarding visa issuance; and (3) whether State should continue to be responsible for the visa process. More here.

The Democrats are in a pre 9/11 mentality. After the 9/11 Commission Report, recommendations and solutions were drafted of which the congressional leaders all approved. In particular, go to page 24 of the summary as it relates to immigration.

The Trump administration has pulled America out of the United Nations global compact on migration citing American Sovereignty.

Ambassador Nikki Haley, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, issued the following statement:

“America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe. No country has done more than the United States, and our generosity will continue. But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”

In response to the news, Editor Trevor Loudon stated, “No nation can survive without the ability to control her own borders. This is a very positive step for America. It is great to see President Trump taking the reigns on this issue.”

On Tuesday the Trump administration announced it was ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program — sort of.

Appropriately, the announcement was made by the federal government’s chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who stated:

I am here today to announce that the program known as DACA that was effectuated under the Obama Administration is being rescinded. This policy was implemented unilaterally to great controversy and legal concern after Congress rejected legislative proposals to extend similar benefits on numerous occasions to this same group of illegal aliens. In other words, the executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.

The effect of this unilateral executive amnesty, among other things, contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences. It also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens.

Sessions has it exactly right.

Obama exceeded his authority by unilaterally creating the program. The result was an unprecedented flood of illegal aliens across our southern border. Congress resisted Obama’s demand for an illegal-alien amnesty so he decided to use his “phone and pen” to do it himself. Ever feckless and inept, the GOP-controlled Congress did nothing to prevent this wholesale usurpation of the power of the Legislative Branch.

General Sessions’ announcement appeared to finally fulfill Trump’s campaign promise to end the program, although he had originally promised to end it on his first day in office. But better late than never, right?

Democrats immediately went off the rails with accusations of racism and “white supremacism.”

MoveOn.org’s national spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre, called it a “White supremacy agenda.”

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) said, Trump was pushing a “xenophobic agenda.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called it currying favor with “champions of hate and bigotry…” Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), one of Congress’s most vocal DACA advocates, accused the White House staff of being “white supremacists.” Former President Obama called the DACA decision “cruel” and said, “a shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again.” Such comments from left-wing activists, Democratic politicians, and media spokespeople (but I repeat myself) dominated the news.

But they should actually be happy.

Exhibiting a pattern that has become frustratingly and alarmingly more frequent, Trump shortly followed General Sessions’ announcement with a tweet suggesting Trump wasn’t going to end DACA at all, but wanted to make sure it survives:

Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!

If this is really Trump’s intention, it is a demand for Congress to regularize DACA and an invitation to open the doors for wholesale amnesty legislation. And it looks like that is exactly what he intends. Thursday morning Trump tweeted the following:

For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the 6 month period, you have nothing to worry about – No action!

According to Breitbart, Trump sent this tweet in response to a request from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to reassure DACA illegals that they wouldn’t be deported in the coming six months.

Congressional Democrats and more Republicans than would like to admit, have sought to enact a nationwide DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act. Such legislation has been passed in a few states, providing in-state tuition and other benefits to illegal alien youth. For obvious reasons, it is very unpopular among voters, whose American children get bumped so colleges can make room for the “DREAMers,” while we all pay higher taxes to finance that and other benefits.

Trump’s position now provides cover for the many Republicans who would like to pass amnesty but justifiably fear repercussions at the ballot box. Everyone, including the media, as well as Republicans and Democrats, falsely refer to DACA beneficiaries as “kids” and “DREAMers.” But with one tweet, Trump has both legitimized the perception of DACA recipients as “kids” and enabled congressional proponents to rhapsodize openly about passing a DREAM Act.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) joined with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) for a press conference on Wednesday. Both senators are part of the infamous bipartisan “Gang of Eight,” whose members sought to pass wholesale amnesty in 2013 but were unable to do so in the face of furious opposition from voters. Graham immediately saw Trump’s announcement for what it was, and telegraphed what is likely to become the Senate GOP’s position going forward:

We need to create a process forward to fix the broken immigration system. Starting with the DREAM [Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors] Act kids… is a good down payment on what will eventually be a comprehensive solution to a broken immigration system.

He called this “a defining moment” for the GOP. He said that Democrats would never agree to border security if they didn’t get what they want — thereby preemptively ceding negotiating points to the Democrats. Echoing Obama, Durbin called DACA recipients, “780 thousand of the best and brightest young people in our country…”

Everything about this is false. There is certainly no reason to believe illegal aliens are particularly stupid, but the notion that they are “the best and brightest” is absurd. And they are not “kids”.

The earliest DACA applications were submitted between August 2012 and September 2013. A total of 514,800 were accepted. At that time, about half were between 15 and 19 years of age, and half were between 20 and 31. An August 2013 Brookings Institution study found that 36 percent (about 185,300) of those applicants were between 15 and 18. The rest (329,500) were 19 or older. Today all of these DACA recipients are over 19. About half are between 25 and 35. None are “kids.”

Between 2014 and 2017, an additional 272,680 have been accepted into the DACA program, for a total of 787,580. No age breakdown has been published regarding these later applicants, but almost all are 19 or older today.

What the Democrats want, have always wanted, and have deliberately sabotaged efforts to control our borders for, is a flood of illegal aliens who will eventually obtain amnesty and citizenship. The Democrats know that most of these “new Americans” will vote Democrat.

The number of illegals in the U.S. is estimated by Pew Research to be about 11 million, but the actual number is likely 20 to 30 million or more. In either case, it could deliver enough Democrat votes to give them electoral majorities for the foreseeable future. It would spell the end for the Republican Party. The only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that Republicans like Lindsey Graham either don’t want to lead or are actually Democrats just pretending to be Republicans.

Graham gave President Trump credit for putting the ball in Congress’s court, thereby restoring Congress’s proper constitutional role in deciding immigration issues. But President Trump didn’t even do that. He is now suggesting that if Congress doesn’t act, he is happy to unconstitutionally usurp Congress’s legislative role, just as Obama did, and resurrect the program.

In my opinion, Trump’s campaign position on illegal immigration, border security, and refugee resettlement, more than any other single issue, was responsible for his victory at the polls last November. That issue, and the alarming direction our country took under former President Obama, enabled the Republican Party to win control of both houses of Congress, and the largest GOP majorities in state legislatures and governorships in almost a century.

If President Trump betrays these promises he will not be reelected. If the GOP Congress persists in betraying their campaign promises, their congressional majorities will be wiped out in 2018. A Democrat Congress would impeach President Trump. No matter that it would be based on entirely contrived accusations. They don’t care, any more than they care about border security, the rule of law or anything else that won’t help them personally. It will spell the beginning of the end for our country.

There is some additional help coming from the Trump administration as President Trump is likely to issue and sign executive order on immigration that will impact visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. These are worn torn countries where hostilities continue with terror organizations. An issue that still remains however that Trump has not addressed is the asylum seekers.

A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the Governor of a State to reject the resettlement of a refugee in that State unless there is adequate assurance that the alien does not present a security risk and for other purposes. The 2 page text is here.

New bill from Cruz, Poe would let states reject refugees

WT: Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would give governors the power to reject federal efforts to resettle refugees in their states.

The bill from Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Ted Poe, both of Texas, is a reaction to years of growing GOP frustration with the Obama administration’s aggressive effort to take in refugees and resettle them across the country. Republicans continue to have doubts that refugees can be vetted to ensure they aren’t Islamic State terrorists.

The State Refugee Security Act would require the federal government to notify states at least 21 days before they seek to settle a refugee. Under the bill, if a state governor certifies that the federal government hasn’t offered enough assurances that the refugee does not pose a security risk, the state can block the resettlement effort.

Poe said the Obama administration’s “open door policy” has forced states to take on refugees without these guarantees, and said states need a way to opt out.

“Until the federal government can conduct thorough security screenings and confirm that there are no security risks, Congress should empower states to be able to protect their citizens by refusing to participate in this program,” he said.

Cruz said the first obligation of the president is to keep Americans safe, and said the bill would be a step in that direction.

“I am encouraged that, unlike the previous administration, one of President Trump‘s top priorities is to defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” he said. “To augment the efforts of the new administration, this legislation I have introduced will reinforce the authority of the states and governors to keep their citizens safe.”

****

The Trump White House also has not addressed the issue of criminal deportation of foreign nationals. Each foreign inmate is known to cost the taxpayer an estimated $21,000 per year. Enforcement and removal operations of those illegal foreign nationals now falls to the newly confirmed DHS Secretary Kelly.

FY 2015 ICE Immigration Removals

In addition to its criminal investigative responsibilities, ICE shares responsibility for enforcing the nation’s civil immigration laws with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE’s role in the immigration enforcement system is focused on two primary missions: (1) the identification and apprehension of criminal aliens and other removable individuals located in the United States; and (2) the detention and removal of those individuals apprehended in the interior of the U.S., as well as those apprehended by CBP officers and agents patrolling our nation’s borders.

In executing these responsibilities, ICE has prioritized its limited resources on the identification and removal of criminal aliens and those apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States. This report provides an overview of ICE Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 civil immigration enforcement and removal operations. See FY 2015 ICE Immigration Removals Statistics

Expectations of a quick solution and immediate movement to address the immigration matter are misplaced as this will be a long slog of an operation and will take the coordination of several agencies including the U.S. State Department which is presently operating without a Secretary until Rex Tillerson is confirmed and sworn in. The fallout will include a diplomatic challenge which is many cases does need to occur, however other nations such as China and Russia will step in to intrude on the process including those at the United Nations level, falling into the lap of the newly confirmed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley.